|
Post by thirteen on Jun 27, 2011 7:38:25 GMT -8
When I read that his work is part of several museums' permanent collection, I was a bit shocked. I asked myself is I was missing something, because I didn't see the appeal in this work. All art is that way, but it's particularly true for high-brow. I'm reading The $12 Million Stuffed Shark thanks to another member here and it's filled with stories like those of Kostabi's. Really interesting, and I lost some respect for the way art works in those high-brow establishments. I'll take low-brow any day. Not to say that it's perfect, but there's a reason why people believe there are "art snobs".
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jul 3, 2011 18:20:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jul 7, 2011 16:29:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Jul 8, 2011 9:07:32 GMT -8
The Morisot painting, valued at €800,000 (£718,000), belonged to Anne-Marie Rouart, a descendant of Édouard Manet. She was a friend of Daniel Wildenstein who often stored artworks on her behalf. When she died in 1993, her family complained that some works were missingSo the moral of the story is...don't store your art at someone else's house --even your friends.
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Jul 13, 2011 21:50:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Aug 11, 2011 7:43:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Aug 19, 2011 11:31:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Aug 23, 2011 7:28:51 GMT -8
Interesting auction coming up of a science fiction collector's estate, including very rare first editions and some incredible cover art, including an important Frazetta.
|
|
|
Post by cpk on Aug 28, 2011 17:31:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 28, 2011 20:15:06 GMT -8
thanks for sharing, hadn't seen that article yet, it's a cool idea for a study.
|
|
|
Post by lowpro on Sept 1, 2011 20:31:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Sept 1, 2011 23:43:08 GMT -8
Some interesting details. Especially that MBW is actually filthy rich and the whole Shepard Fairey lawsuit and Banksy situation.
|
|
|
Post by |peetov| on Sept 2, 2011 3:48:36 GMT -8
when watching the film, it never seemed to make much sense how mbw had enough money to just follow people around and do whatever he wanted for years on end. didn't the film say he did something with reselling clothes? i remember discussing this with my friends afterwards and being like, how the hell....
at least this sheds some light on possibilities, whether true or not i guess is unknown for now. thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by lilflyingmonkey on Sept 7, 2011 2:35:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by |peetov| on Oct 18, 2011 12:54:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by lowpro on Oct 19, 2011 21:47:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by treeoflife on Oct 19, 2011 22:35:56 GMT -8
yikes! looks like he's a regular shepard fairey.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Nov 15, 2011 17:17:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by iamthetoe on Dec 31, 2011 10:03:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jan 4, 2012 8:10:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mancub on Jan 4, 2012 9:11:59 GMT -8
Hockney hits the mark. Though I believe there is still value in art school, almost all of my expectations of it fell short. For one, ability ranks low amongst professor's expectations for the most part and therefore is loosely taught to students (from my experience).
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Jan 16, 2012 12:49:36 GMT -8
Found this article, "Why art is a terrible investment,". The author makes a pretty good argument. I would love to hear what people on the board think. t.co/lsiyu8id
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Jan 17, 2012 21:46:45 GMT -8
Why Art Is a Sensible Investment — Just Not for You | Artinfo
Felix Salmon — who is a financial blogger for Reuters, and, for the record, married to an artist — occasionally wags his finger at writers who cover the art market as they would any other financial asset. In a recent post, he points to Patrick Mathurin, a Financial Times journalist who made the grave mistake of comparing the rise in the Mei Moses Art Index to stock market returns as if he were comparing apples to apples (which, for the record, ARTINFO admits it sort of did in an article about SWAG, which ironically is not "stuff we all get," but silver, wine, art, and gold, the stuff that few can afford).
Salmon argues (and has argued 872 times, apparently) that art is not an investment. He wants journalists to stop writing about art as an asset class, arguing that "Art doesn’t have returns, it just sits there, being expensively insured. It pays no dividends, and it can’t be marked to market, since the only way to find out the market price for an artwork is to sell it."
Salmon is mostly right: art doesn't have returns, it's expensive to insure, and it can't be marked to market (accurately). But those things don't preclude art from being purchased as an "investment," they just make art a mostly terrible investment for the vast majority of the population. Salmon commits the same error in coming to his conclusion as Mathurin: he writes as if the issue over art investment were black and white, as if every reader he has should look at the art market in the same way. In reality, the art market is more like an Ad Reinhardt painting — there are so many different shades of black.
Certainly, art is not a traditional investment. Most investors should listen to Salmon. The 99 percent — or even the 99.9 percent — shouldn't think of art as an investment. To make money on art you have to have lots of money (preferably billions) lots of time (like, decades) and above all, an interest in art that borders on obsession. The people that immediately fall into this category are mostly oligarchs of one kind or another — they're the Steve Cohens, the Roman Abramovichs, and the various Mugrabis of the world. They have more money than they could dream of spending in a lifetime, and can therefore absorb the shock of spending and potentially losing millions of dollars on objects that hold little intrinsic value and can rarely be accurately assessed for investment purposes.
What is irresponsible is not referring to art as an investment class — because it can be for those lucky few who know the market well enough and have pockets deep enough to spend millions on the likes of Picasso and Warhol — but to pretend that the average investor should consider it an investment class that belongs in his or her portfolio. Art is an alternative investment for those mentioned on Forbes lists, not for Joe the Plumber, or even Joe the Investment Banker.
Investing in the "art market" is essentially throwing your money into an unregulated market. It's extremely risky and should not be undertaken by anyone without bottomless capital and a superior knowledge of the industry. It's been compared to other luxury "alternative investments" like gold or even real estate (once again, SWAG). But buying the kind of art that might make you money is more in the realm of buying a sports team (even some of the same players are involved). The fan-owned Green Bay Packers notwithstanding, neither sports teams nor major art purchases are investments that should be undertaken by the layman, but they are still investments that can pay off when done right — and that's a distinction that should probably be made more clearly more often.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Jan 17, 2012 23:32:27 GMT -8
Of course it's not an investment unless you have investment grade art where there is a well established international market. The prices for that caliber of work are certainly above my pricepoint. But I collect art that I love and view it like a lottery ticket. Maybe I have a piece that will be discovered and hyped to the extent there someday might be an international market for it. But I don't expect that any more than I expect to win enough in the lottery to stop working.
Not only is art not an investment, it is really one of the most extreme luxury indulgences I can think of. As a collector I have to acknowledge and own to that. The idea that my purchases are an investment would be pure denial. Even if were to flip a work of art that appreciated, is that ROI really likely to exceed that of a reasonably prudent investment in the market of the same amount, especially given the selling costs? Exceedingly doubtful, especially comparing the aggregate investment return in each category.
At best one might say quality art by artists who are good sellers over a longer period may be a better a place to spend money investment wise than a car, which in nearly all cases is a bad investment outside of the minimum to get you reliably and safely from point a to point b.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Feb 21, 2012 22:20:08 GMT -8
Edvard Munch's The Scream to be sold at auction | Art and design | guardian.co.uk A version of one of the most recognisable images in the world – Edvard Munch's The Scream – is to be sold by Sotheby's in New York. The auction house said it could fetch more than $80m (£50m), which would make it one of the most expensive artworks ever sold at auction. The pastel work is one of four versions created by the Norwegian artist using different techniques, and the only one in private hands. Simon Shaw, head of the impressionist and modern art department at Sotheby's in New York, said: "Munch's The Scream is the defining image of modernity, and it is an immense privilege for Sotheby's to be entrusted with one of the most important works of art in private hands. "Instantly recognisable, this is one of very few images which transcends art history and reaches a global consciousness. The Scream arguably embodies even greater power today than when it was conceived. "At a time of great critical interest in the artist, and with the 150th anniversary of his birth in 2013, this spring is a particularly compelling time for The Scream to appear on the market. For collectors and institutions, the opportunity to acquire such a singularly influential masterpiece is unprecedented in recent times." Shaw said it was difficult to predict the value of The Scream but recent sales suggested the price could exceed $80m at the 2 May auction. That would place it alongside auction record holders, such as Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves and Bust, which holds the current record after it sold for $106m at Christie's in New York in May 2010. That broke the previous record of $104.3m paid three months earlier for Giacometti's Walking Man I at Sotheby's in London. The Scream is owned by Norwegian businessman Petter Olsen – of the Olsen shipping family – whose father, Thomas, was a friend and patron of Munch and acquired it to boost the artist's reputation overseas. Olsen said: "I have lived with this work all my life, and its power and energy have only increased with time. "Now, however, I feel the moment has come to offer the rest of the world a chance to own and appreciate this remarkable work, which is the only version of The Scream not in the collection of a Norwegian museum." He added: "I am concerned as an environmentalist about man's relationship with nature, and I feel The Scream makes an important statement about this." The work was one of many by Munch that Olsen's father had acquired in an effort to further the artist's reputation by lending the collection to exhibitions overseas, he said. "In that tradition, proceeds from this sale will go toward the establishment of a new museum, art centre and hotel on my farm Ramme Gaard at Hvitsten, Norway. It will open next year in connection with the Munch 150th anniversary, and will be dedicated to the artist's work and time there." Munch's studio and house would be restored, allowing guests to stay in the latter, he said. This version of The Scream is the most vibrant of the four, with the prime example being in the collection of the National Gallery of Norway. It was stolen in 1994, at the start of the winter Olympics in Lillehammer, but returned later that year. Ten years later the other two versions were stolen, this time by a masked gunman. They were also recovered and went back on display in 2008. The sale will allow this 1895 version to go on public display in London and New York for the first time.
|
|